Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court
Jonathan D. Libby does not dispute the fact that his client, Xavier Alvarez, told a "whopping" lie when he annouced publicly that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Alvarez was one of the first people to be prosecuted under the federal Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military awards.
Alvarez was prosecuted because, as an elected member of the board of directors of the Three Valley Water District Board in California, he introduced himself in 2007 to the audience by saying, "I'm a retired Marine of 25 years. I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor."
Alvarez had never even served in the military.
But Libby, a deputy federal public defender, argues that Alvarez's speech was a lie, not a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court will take up Alvarez's case Wednesday and his argument that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
"Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment," Libby writes in court papers.
He says that unlike other categories of speech such as defamation and fraud, his client's false factual speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The Obama administration argues that the law fits into a "discrete and narrow" category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment: "knowingly false representations that a reasonable observer would understand as a factual claim that the speaker has been awarded a military honor."
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. says the law is necessary to protect the military awards system against claims that undercut its purpose to confer honor and foster morale in the armed forces. He says the law does not chill truthful and other fully protected speech.
"Prohibiting those false statements," Verrilli writes, "poses little risk of chilling any protected speech or allowing the government to punish disfavored viewpoints or act as the arbiter of truth and falsity on matters subject to public debate."
Libby says Congress' effort in passing the law was "laudable but does not warrant the intrusion on speech it causes, and thus goes farther than necessary."
A lower court ruled in favor of Alvarez saying that while society would be "better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive untruths" the law was "unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar, without more."
Re: Stolen Valor Act at Supreme Court
Exaggerated anecdote my butt...that is not just an exaggerated anecdote. Sorry, I couldn't get past that line.
It is illegal for me represent my selfas a police officer in any manner or form, even if it is not for personal gain. How is it any different for someone to call themselves a former SM or an award winner? Even if you aren't making money off of it, you are still gaining attention from it. Having someone clap for you at an airport is still getting attention you would not have received had you not been wearing the fake uniform or medal. Telling some chick at a bar you were a Ranger to get in her pants is still getting you a piece of a$$ you probably wouldn't have had with out lying about it. It is a fraudulent misrepresentation of one's self. You may not gain money from it, but you are still getting something out of it. Which should make it illegal. Not only that, it lessens the value of the actual actions of the people who really did earn that award or title.
Edit for typo
I agree with this line of thought.
I agree with you on a personal level I do. This guy is a loser but if the Court finds in favor of the prosecution where does it stop? What lies are okay and what lies aren't? If I exaggerate a trivial story while I'm out with friends should I worry about being charged? Where is the line?
I think there needs to be a test of how the lie benefits you. Financial or positional gain seem to be the two biggest reasons people lie about their service or lack thereof. I don't think using the test towards someone's sexual life is an accurate way to test the law though. If a woman wanted to sleep with him because she is attracted to men who are Marines and he said he was a Marine then that was her preference. If however he were portraying himself as a police officer and said "I either take you to jail or you sleep with me" then clearly that's coercion and sexual assault.
My biggest problem with this guy is that he has stood in front of a crowd and declared himself a 25 year veteran and Medal of Honor recipient. That is definitely lying for gain on a personal level. Big difference from the bar room lie.
I think you answered your own question.... Clearly Alveraz is benefiting, this article seems to highlight just the one time. My guess is that he was misrepresenting himself long before this incident and after, which leads me to believe he was given freebee's based on his misrepresentation. If they can prove that, I agree with TX.
I think comparing this to friends at a bar is extreme and pretty ridiculous. Alveraz was not just amongst friends.... it was a speaking engagement. Now, if you are out with friends at a bar claiming to be a SM and get free drinks or something similar then I think it would be an appropriate use of the law.
No. There is a reason that one is sworn under oath in a court of law: to get the truth no matter how it may reflect on the person/incident in question.
The USC says
But lying under oath isn't apropos in this situation. While I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of the law, it is a tricky thing to uphold in court, as in this case. It's like saying using obscenities is illegal. Out of line with people's moral code, sure. But subject to judicial action? I don't know...
Edited grammar fail.
I think you're right - it does hinge on personal gain. If he gained from it, it's not just a lie, it's fraud.
So, did he gain from it? Or, expect to gain from it? I would guess he did, if only because I can't think of any possible reason someone would claim in public to have this award and be a vet without the expectation of gaining from it...
I'm wondering mostly if he used it to get himself elected. It says he was an elected board member but was that before or after?
I agree that it's really hard to prosecute on the First Amendment.
Technically it isn?t, if you are lying to a Peace Officer, or under oath. But I get where you are going.... I think for cases like this it would be far too messy to define lying in a legal sense... as I know the next step will be to interpret the level or degree of gain. What I would like to see is Service Members added to existing impersonation law.